“The phenols from grapes (cinnamates, anthocyanins, tannins, etc.) and their derivatives are the most important group of compounds distinguishing sound wines of different types and qualities…” - Grape and Wine Phenolics; Background and Prospects, V.L. Singleton, Professor UC Davis
Last Thursday at UCD, grad student Kirsten Skogerson presented the results of her research into predictive modeling of phenolic compounds in red wine fermentations via UV-Visible spectroscopy (Generally the longer the seminar name, the more impressive the research - and this one is a mouthful). Simply put, Skogerson measured hundreds of samples of wine at various stages of development using a spectrometer and created a statistical model of the data. Her model seems to predict with good accuracy the final amount of anthocyanins (the red and purple pigments responsible for red wine color) and tannins in a fermenting red wine. Having this information helps a winemaker know, for example, when to press down their wine, and can give a good indication of overall quality by comparison to samples of former vintages of known quality.
Note: What follows is my opinion and in no way should be attributed to Skogerson. In fact when I brought up the following during a Q&A, she pointedly refused to even comment (the crowd got a good chuckle out of it as well).
The bottom line for a winemaker is that with this method he could begin to complie a database of his wine profiles via UV-Vis spectroscopy, use a modified version of Skogerson’s system to create a predictive model based on past vintages, and ultimately use the information to help aid in winemaking decisions. The results should be more consistent and higher quality wine.
Currently Enologix offers a similar service to wineries which costs around $20,000/yr. The difference is that Enologix correlates phenolic data with wine scores from Parker and the Wine Spectator. Enologix claims to be able to predict the score of a wine from its chemical profile to within a couple of points with something like 90% accuracy. Their methods are proprietary however, and clients must sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. Secrecy abounds - many wineries won’t even admit to being a client of Enologix.
What Skogerson has done is pry open Enologix’s black box just a bit. But instead of promising a system that will deliver a wine that scores well, her system allows a winery the ability to better chase their best vintage or a particular style, instead of simply chasing a score. For those who think that winemakers cater too much to the influential palate of Parker etc, this is a promising development.
For my part I hope this research is continued, and that further details on industry implementation are made available. We’d love to put such a system to work for us at Capozzi.
[...] Last May I wrote about the very interesting work of a UCD grad student named Kirsten Skogerson. This week she and Dr. Roger Boulton released a spreadsheet with their predictive model baked in. In essence, the model promises to allow rapid analysis of phenolics such as tannins and anthocyanins (red and purple pigments responsible for color in red wine) without having to go through some of the more difficult assays required to obtain such measurements. [...]
I am interested in Enologix because it is something of a standard, or at least a better one than what is available from the academy. In essence, Enologix metrics are predictive of consumer scores, — market performance. What makes Enologix a good bet for we winemakers is that it is able to predict throughout the wine value-chain, i.e. in the vineyards, wineries, and consumer markets. Above all, if my wine businesses makes money making wine with Enologix metrics I am not interested in undermining the system with other systems. What is the point?
Hi New Winemaker,
While I am keenly, keenly, aware of the financial pressure that a small producer faces, I don’t believe that Enologix holds the key to better market performance. There are plenty of 90 point Napa Cabs on the market that simply aren’t selling out. Also, I just can’t see how spending 20K a year to have a lab vet my work makes any real financial sense. If I can’t trust my palate to tell me if I’ve met my stylistic goals then what good am I?
Also, I think that the fact that you posted this anonymously speaks volumes. If Enologix is good for the industry, lets be proud of their contribution and own up to admiring/using them. If I ever do use them I will be quite open about it. After all, their feedback could be used in an innocuous manner if used primarily to gauge your style against what they predict the market/Parker/Spectator will prefer. If the price ever drops to more reasonable levels I may use them to do just that.
The problem IMHO, is that’s not what folks appear to be doing. Instead they are using Enologix to tell them how to make *their* wine. I’d rather pocket that 20K a year and trust my palate.
My sense is wine is business, too.. Given your bias, you would probably punish me in print if I revealed the famous winery I work at here in the middle of the Napa Valley. So I must demure, though I can tell you Enologix is very widespread here in the most important winemaking region in the new world.
Let’s stick to the facts to make our points. Your sense is that Enologix is bad. Bad for what? It’s good for making wine. The New York Times said it, ‘in one issue of Robert Parket’s guide, one single issue, 51 wines scored which were made with Enologix. That’s alot of fine wine.
You have to admit that’s performance.
Good luck in your efforts to make a significant contribution to the California wine industry.
Hi New Winemaker,
My interest isn’t in seeing anyone punished for using any lab service. I’m not sure why I left that impression. Whether you are making wine from Napa or from Texas doesn’t matter to me. I’d never go out of my way to bash another winemaker or a wine. Do unto others and all that.
I like Parker wines and I like Meadows wines. Enologix helps you make one, but not the other. It has it’s limits because it is designed to cater to a type of style. Determining that style should be the role of the winemaker IMHO. If that makes me biased so be it, but I never said Enologix was bad. In fact, I said if their prices ever came down I’d use them!
Hey, good luck to you as well.
Check out the Business Week feature issue, 2006 Best and Worst Ideas. Enologix continues to garner attention from the consumer media.
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/12/1207_bestideas/source/12.htm
Hello again NW. Thanks for the link. Enologix certainly has always been newsworthy.
This blog reminds me of a David Lynch film, it is referential to something super insider knowledge, in this case students’ former professors at an academy. As a winemaker I can say there is absolutely no connection between anything happening in winemaking at most wineries. UCD is not used to make wine, Enologix is used by 50-70 companies at most, and this is a tempest in a tea pot.
FYI. Enologix has waded in on the side of the consumer with respect to wine labeling laws. See What’s really in that wine?
New federal labels may tell us more than we want to know.
By Corie Brown, Times Staff Writer
March 28, 2007
Enologix is some kind of hybrid between the producers and consumers, or so it appears, and maybe their future is a a consumer site, a sort of Zagat for wine. What’s your sense?
A consumer service, Enologix is not. It is technology company. We use their testing, software-way cool blending tool-to make tasting trials, and some of their consulting.
They remain the gold standard. Report from UCD’s RAVE two weeks ago: RAVE presented color and tannin assays, and I believe the subtext was that researchers believe they have a tannin assay to replace Enologix’s. Back here in wine country no commercial laboratory in Napa Valley which is offering the UCD Adam’s assay as a replacement. I can only surmise that Enologix has the better analytical chemistry.
As to Enologix black box. Its a competitive advantage for we winemakers. If everyone has the same technology, the value of Enologix is diminished. So I for one hope no one figures it all out
Happy winemaking.
I have no problem with the concept of digitalizing wine, we have digitalized everything else. What I don’t like is that it references to the two biggest pieces of self aggrandizing, marketing hype crap, bullshit artists out there, and that so many people buy into them. It’s not hard to make Parker wines, just overprocess and cheat with micro-O2, enzymes, extracts etc… And so many do, especially in Napa, and especially when they have a big name, so many… Everybody makes their neighbors wine and they all taste the same. The bigger they are, the more they have to lose, and the more desperate they get.
[...] written about Enologix here before. Their service purports to help you make wine that will score better with influential gatekeepers [...]
UCD phenolic methods, ……they are not widespread.Why?
Wine Business Monthly covered UCDs Boulton. WBM exposed that Boulton’s article prompted an unusual response from academic Chris Somers, who in an article appearing in the March/April 2003 Australia and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal said it “seems to contain strange interpretations and some dubious recommendations.”
“Roger Boulton, who had previously made no contribution to the subject in the open research literature, published an extremely long and devious article (20 pages) with no less than 129 references dating back more than a century,” Somers told Wine Business Monthly via e-mail. “It was presented as a scholarly review in his Department’s home Journal (2001)–the worst review I have ever encountered. I do not consider that it could have been published anywhere else. He has muddied the waters so much that I felt obliged to respond by what I claim to be a more logical account.”
Boulton told Wine Business Monthly that the problem with Somer’s assays for color measurements is that they do not incorporate the copigmentation aspect, and as such over estimate the anthocyanin content, especially in young wines. “This has been a major problem for research in young wine color for many years,” he said.
“As you can see, there is sometimes conflict in the pathways of science, but truth will win out,” Somers said.